146 Mich. 233 | Mich. | 1906
Mr. Burman died February 11,1905. The plaintiff presented, as a claim against the estate of Mr. Burman, a note for $308, dated May 14, 189?, payable on demand. There was on the back of the note the following indorsement:
“ Received on the within note the sum of twenty-five dollars, this 13th day of April, 1903.
“Magnus Locklund.
“ By John Locklund,
“ His agent and attorney in fact.”
The case was appealed to the circuit court where the judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff. Upon the trial it appeared that John Locklund had a written power of
“No person who shall have acted as an agent in the making or continuing of a contract with any person who may have died, shall be a competent witness in any suit involving such contract, as to matters occurring prior to the death of such decedent, on behalf of the principal to such contract against the legal representatives or heirs of such decedent, unless he shall be called by such heirs or legal representatives.”
Counsel for the appellee insists, and the learned trial judge entertained the same opinion, that the statute does not apply to this case. We quote from the brief:
“If John Locklund, agent and attorney of Magnus Locklund, the plaintiff in this case, made a new contract with Mr. Burman, the deceased,- on behalf of the plaintiff, or did some act which continued an existing contract between the plaintiff and the deceased, he certainly would be barred from testifying, but I contend that he did neither of these two acts. He certainly made no new contract in receiving a payment on the promissory note and he did not continue an existing contract because, without the payment, it would have continued in force for a period of one year and over.”
We do not agree with counsel. It is true that at the time it is claimed the payment was made, the statute of
Judgment is reversed, and new trial ordered.